A new procedure is presented for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid from pure-tone thresholds. This was developed from research which showed that a previous procedure did not meet its aim of amplifying all frequency bands of speech to equal loudness but that frequency responses which did so were considerably more effective. Measurements of 30 sensorineurally hearing-impaired ears (27 subjects), together with data from other studies, were analyzed to determine the best formula for predicting the optimal frequency response, for each individual, from the audiogram. The analysis indicated that a flat audiogram would require a rising frequency response characteristic of about 8 dB/octave up to 1.25 kHz and thereafter a falling characteristic of about 2 dB/octave. Variations in audiogram slope required about one-third as much variation in response slope. Three frequency average (3FA) gain was calculated to equal the 3FA gain of the previous procedure. Forty-four subjects (67 aided ears) fitted by the new procedure were evaluated by paired comparison judgments of the intelligibility and pleasantness of speech. The prescribed frequency response was seldom inferior to, and usually better than, any of several variations having more, or less, low and/or high-frequency amplification. On the average, used gain was approximately equal to prescribed gain. It is concluded that the new formula should prescribe a near optimal frequency response with few exceptions.

The long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) and some dynamic characteristics of speech were determined for 12 languages: English (several dialects), Swedish, Danish, German, French (Canadian), Japanese, Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, Welsh, Singhalese, and Vietnamese. The LTASS only was also measured for Arabic. Speech samples (18) were recorded, using standardized equipment and procedures, in 15 localities for (usually) ten male and ten female talkers. All analyses were conducted at the National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney. The LTASS was similar for all languages although there were many statistically significant differences. Such differences were small and not always consistent for male and female samples of the same language. For one-third octave bands of speech, the maximum short-term rms level was 10 dB above the maximum long-term rms level, consistent across languages and frequency. A "universal" LTASS is suggested as being applicable, across languages, for many purposes including use in hearing aid prescription procedures and in the Articulation Index.

NAL-NL2 is the second generation of prescription procedures from The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) for fitting wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) instruments. Like its predecessor NALNL1 (Dillon, 1999), NAL-NL2 aims at making speech intelligible and overall loudness comfortable. This aim is mainly driven by a belief that these factors are most important for hearing aid users, but is also driven by the fact that less information is available about how to adjust gain to optimise other parameters that affect prescription such as localisation, tonal quality, detection of environmental sounds, and naturalness. In both formulas, the objective is achieved by combining a speech intelligibility model and a loudness model in an adaptive computer- controlled optimisation process. Adjustments have further been made to the theoretical component of NAL-NL2 that are directed by empirical data collected during the past decade with NAL-NL1. In this paper, the data underlying NAL-NL2 and the derivation procedure are presented, and the main differences from NAL-NL1 are outlined

Two experiments were conducted to examine the relationship between audibility and speech recognition for individuals with sensorineural hearing losses ranging from mild to profound degrees. Speech scores measured using filtered sentences were compared to predictions based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII). The SII greatly overpredicted performance at high sensation levels, and for many listeners, it underpredicted performance at low sensation levels. To improve predictive accuracy, the SII needed to be modified. Scaling the index by a multiplicative proficiency factor was found to be inappropriate, and alternative modifications were explored. The data were best fitted using a method that combined the standard level distortion factor (which accounted for decrease in speech intelligibility at high presentation levels based on measurements of normal-hearing people) with individual frequency-dependent proficiency. This method was evaluated using broadband sentences and nonsense syllables tests. Results indicate that audibility cannot adequately explain speech recognition of many hearing-impaired listeners. Considerable variations from audibility-based predictions remained, especially for people with severe losses listening at high sensation levels. The data suggest that, contrary to the basis of the SII, information contained in each frequency band is not strictly additive. The data also suggest that for people with severe or profound losses at the high frequencies, amplification should only achieve a low or zero sensation level at this region, contrary to the implications of the unmodified SII.